Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
R v Oakes
R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the legal test for whether a government action infringing a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is justified. David Oakes challenged the validity of provisions under the Narcotic Control Act that provided a person found in possession of a narcotic, absent of evidence to the contrary, must be convicted of trafficking the narcotic. Oakes contended the presumption of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under section 11(d) of the Charter.
The Supreme Court established the Oakes test as an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the Charter that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if the limitation is motivated by a "pressing and substantial objective" and can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
On December 17, 1981, David Edwin Oakes was arrested in London, Ontario, and charged with possession of eight one gram vials of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, a narcotic under section 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. Oakes was also found with CA$619.45 (equivalent to $1,966 in 2023) in cash, afterwards he told police he had purchased ten one gram vials of hashish oil for $150 for personal use and the money was from a workers' compensation cheque.
In 1961, the Parliament of Canada passed the Narcotic Control Act, a new legislative framework for the control of narcotics in Canada. The new act replaced the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act while providing an offence for illegal importing or exporting of narcotics, and increased penalties for convictions. The new Narcotic Control Act carried forward reverse onus provisions for possession introduced first introduced in 1911, and further expanded through the 1920s. Parliament expanded reverse onus provisions in 1954 to facilitate convictions for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
Section 4 of the Narcotic Control Act provided the provisions and penalties for trafficking narcotics.
Section 4(1): No person shall traffic in a narcotic or any substance represented or held out by him to be a narcotic.
Section 4(2): No person shall have in his possession a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.
Section 4(3): Every person who violates subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
Hub AI
R v Oakes AI simulator
(@R v Oakes_simulator)
R v Oakes
R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the legal test for whether a government action infringing a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is justified. David Oakes challenged the validity of provisions under the Narcotic Control Act that provided a person found in possession of a narcotic, absent of evidence to the contrary, must be convicted of trafficking the narcotic. Oakes contended the presumption of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under section 11(d) of the Charter.
The Supreme Court established the Oakes test as an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the Charter that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if the limitation is motivated by a "pressing and substantial objective" and can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
On December 17, 1981, David Edwin Oakes was arrested in London, Ontario, and charged with possession of eight one gram vials of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, a narcotic under section 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. Oakes was also found with CA$619.45 (equivalent to $1,966 in 2023) in cash, afterwards he told police he had purchased ten one gram vials of hashish oil for $150 for personal use and the money was from a workers' compensation cheque.
In 1961, the Parliament of Canada passed the Narcotic Control Act, a new legislative framework for the control of narcotics in Canada. The new act replaced the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act while providing an offence for illegal importing or exporting of narcotics, and increased penalties for convictions. The new Narcotic Control Act carried forward reverse onus provisions for possession introduced first introduced in 1911, and further expanded through the 1920s. Parliament expanded reverse onus provisions in 1954 to facilitate convictions for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
Section 4 of the Narcotic Control Act provided the provisions and penalties for trafficking narcotics.
Section 4(1): No person shall traffic in a narcotic or any substance represented or held out by him to be a narcotic.
Section 4(2): No person shall have in his possession a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.
Section 4(3): Every person who violates subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.